Lendl is Murray's new coach

Well, he had the reputation for leaving no stone unturned in his own career and I'm pretty sure he will do the same with Andy. This is his first coaching job and - who knows maybe his only one - he will want it to be a success.

i'm reading Andrei Agassi's autobio and during the early times of his team up with Brad Gilbert, BG mentioned to him that he should not be a perfectionist and that he should try to exploit the opponent's weakness and not to aim for winners all the time.

having said that, i think BG has a big role in molding Andy's counterpunching game. maybe AM took the advice by heart. hope Lendl finds a way to instill a balanced punching-counterpunching approach to his game.

i'm reading Andrei Agassi's autobio and during the early times of his team up with Brad Gilbert, BG mentioned to him that he should not be a perfectionist and that he should try to exploit the opponent's weakness and not to aim for winners all the time.

having said that, i think BG has a big role in molding Andy's counterpunching game. maybe AM took the advice by heart. hope Lendl finds a way to instill a balanced punching-counterpunching approach to his game.

Andy does need to learn that perfection in tennis, or indeed in most things, simply doesn't exist, and accept that even the very best players make mistakes. No point wasting time agonising about a poor shot and still dwelling on it 10 minutes later. That has often cost Andy dearly. However, I did notice in Brisbane and the AO that he seemed to be acquiring the ability to do what all players should - quietly acknowledge to themselves that they have played a bad shot, then immediately put it to the back of their minds and get on with the match. Plenty of time for analysis later! I'm talking about UEs here, but Andy, in the past, has also been guilty of blaming himself for what he perceives as poor play when he fails to return a good shot by his opponent. Again he should just quietly acknowledge his opponent's skill and get on with his own game.

I must admit Dubai can't come quickly enough so's we can see what the Lendl effect has been thus far.

Something someone wrote just reminded me of something else that Annabelle Croft said. It was to the effect that Lendl has encouraged Andy to think about how his opponents see him and Andy said he'd not thought of that before. May have not got it quite right but I guess it relates in part to the way Andy's body language can help his opponent.Oh and I agree Aileen that I'm sure Cahill played an important role in bringing them together. But if Andy hadn't been ready I don't think he'd have taken the advice as we all know how stubborn he can be.

^^^ His stubborness may have cost him a few years winning slams already. Still we can't be sure and as others have said this steady progression may prove to be for the best.

Also Andy could well be what is known as a late bloomer, and Andy himself has often said he would play his best tennis when in his mid-20s. Cahill seems to be of the same opinion and is on record as saying last year that he would be at his peak between 24-27. As Andy will be 25 in May, it'll be interesting to see what happens now.

Also Andy could well be what is known as a late bloomer, and Andy himself has often said he would play his best tennis when in his mid-20s. Cahill seems to be of the same opinion and is on record as saying last year that he would be at his peak between 24-27. As Andy will be 25 in May, it'll be interesting to see what happens now.

As you well know, I have been quoting this age scenario for some time in many posts. I believe it started with Andy himself stating that his best years would be between the ages of 23 and 26. A late bloomer forsooth.

Anytime you achieve a Slam, Andy, would be good enough for me and all on MW.

As you well know, I have been quoting this age scenario for some time in many posts. I believe it started with Andy himself stating that his best years would be between the ages of 23 and 26. A late bloomer forsooth.

Anytime you achieve a Slam, Andy, would be good enough for me and all on MW.

And I've been doing the same, OSS, ever since Andy made his own pronouncement, and I've also reinforced it before with what Cahill said, but somehow the message never seemed to get across. That's why I got so p****d off with certain members who kept writing him off as a Slam winner. Strange how they've all gone quiet lately!

Also Andy could well be what is known as a late bloomer, and Andy himself has often said he would play his best tennis when in his mid-20s. Cahill seems to be of the same opinion and is on record as saying last year that he would be at his peak between 24-27. As Andy will be 25 in May, it'll be interesting to see what happens now.

Given the quite radical improvements made over the last 6 months; he's easily the most improved in the top 4 in this period. I have to agree with this assertion. If he keeps on improving he will reach some kind of critical mass probably this year and become brutal.He wasn't mature enough before to really push on even if he had snuck a slam a la Del Potro but now we are in a new period of the unknown. I just can't predict what he is going to be like. Other than `better`.Which is very cool. With Novak and certainly with Roger and Rafa you know its just going to be more of the same.

With Novak and certainly with Roger and Rafa you know its just going to be more of the same.

The above three players have hit their summit, Novak can stay there for a while the other two have declined if only slightly because they have been overtaken by Novak.Andy is still on the assent not yet reaching his summit. The question is will it be higher than Novak's???